By Professor Januarius Asongu

Part III: From Küng to Boff—The Global Pattern and the Formation of an Anti-Synodal Culture

From Küng to Boff: The Global Pattern

The argument developed thus far suggests that the tension between prophecy and institutional advancement is neither accidental nor confined to particular local churches. The cases of Fr. Michael Evelyn Galabe and Archbishop Andrew Nkea provide a local illustration of a much broader phenomenon. Across modern Catholicism, a recurring pattern emerges in which theologians who function primarily as institutional critics frequently experience marginalization, while those who function as guardians of continuity often rise to positions of authority.

The pattern is sufficiently widespread that it demands explanation.

One of the most visible examples is Hans Küng. A brilliant theologian who played a significant role during the Second Vatican Council, Küng initially enjoyed considerable ecclesial prestige. His contributions to ecumenism, ecclesiology, and theological renewal earned him international recognition. Yet his challenge to the doctrine of papal infallibility brought him into increasing conflict with ecclesiastical authorities, culminating in the withdrawal of his canonical authorization to teach Catholic theology in 1979 (Küng, 1971, 2002).

What is striking is not merely the disciplinary action itself but the contrast between Küng's intellectual influence and his institutional trajectory. Few Catholic theologians of the twentieth century shaped theological discourse more profoundly. Yet influence did not translate into ecclesiastical advancement.

Leonardo Boff presents a similar pattern. Emerging from the context of Latin American liberation theology, Boff challenged ecclesiastical centralization and emphasized the Church's responsibility toward the poor and marginalized (Boff, 1985, 1987). His critique of hierarchical structures and his advocacy of liberation theology brought him into conflict with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

Again, the issue was not theological insignificance. Boff became one of the most influential theological voices in the Global South. Yet his influence generated institutional suspicion rather than institutional promotion.

Bernard Häring's experience followed a similar trajectory. Widely regarded as one of the most important Catholic moral theologians of the twentieth century, Häring helped transform Catholic moral theology by emphasizing conscience, responsibility, and the personal dimensions of moral decision-making (Häring, 1978, 1981). Yet his work frequently attracted scrutiny because it challenged legalistic tendencies within traditional moral theology.

Edward Schillebeeckx likewise spent years defending his theological positions before doctrinal authorities despite his enormous contributions to Christology, sacramental theology, and ecclesiology (Schillebeeckx, 1981, 1987).

Charles Curran encountered comparable difficulties because of his disagreements with official teachings on sexuality and moral theology (Curran, 2006).

These examples span different continents, theological schools, and ecclesial contexts. Yet they reveal a remarkably consistent pattern.

Theologians whose work introduced significant critique frequently encountered resistance.

Theologians whose work reinforced institutional continuity often encountered advancement.

This pattern becomes even more visible when compared with figures such as Joseph Ratzinger.

Ratzinger and the Institutionalization of Orthodoxy

Joseph Ratzinger represents perhaps the most important counterpoint to the critics discussed above.

Unlike many contemporary portrayals, Ratzinger began his career as a theological reformer associated with the renewal movements that eventually contributed to Vatican II (Rowland, 2008). He was neither a reactionary nor a simple defender of the status quo.

However, his experience during the postconciliar period profoundly shaped his understanding of ecclesial life.

Observing what he perceived as increasing doctrinal fragmentation, theological relativism, and institutional instability, Ratzinger became convinced that the Church's primary challenge was not excessive authority but insufficient continuity (Ratzinger, 1987, 2005).

This conviction gradually positioned him as one of Catholicism's foremost defenders of doctrinal coherence.

His appointment as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith reflected institutional confidence in his capacity to preserve theological continuity.

His eventual election as Pope Benedict XVI represented the culmination of that confidence.

From a CSR perspective, Ratzinger's trajectory illustrates an important truth often overlooked by critics.

Institutions do not elevate defenders of continuity merely because they prefer obedience.

They elevate them because institutions genuinely require continuity.

Without continuity, traditions fragment.

Without doctrinal boundaries, communities lose coherence.

Without guardians of memory, institutions lose identity.

The institutional preference for figures such as Ratzinger therefore contains an element of rationality.

The problem emerges when continuity becomes detached from self-correction.

Institutions require guardians.

They also require prophets.

The challenge lies in maintaining both.

Beyond Orthodoxy and Dissent

One of the limitations of contemporary discussions is the tendency to frame ecclesial conflicts as struggles between orthodoxy and dissent.

Such categories are often inadequate.

Hans Küng did not believe he was abandoning the Church.

Leonardo Boff did not understand himself as rejecting Christianity.

Bernard Häring did not see himself as undermining Catholic morality.

Likewise, Joseph Ratzinger did not regard himself as suppressing truth.

He understood himself as defending it.

The conflict therefore cannot be reduced to a simple opposition between fidelity and infidelity.

Critical Synthetic Realism proposes a different interpretation.

Both critics and defenders of continuity are engaged in the pursuit of truth.

Both seek fidelity to the Gospel.

Both remain vulnerable to epistemic fracture.

The difference lies not primarily in intention but in emphasis.

Critics often focus upon distortions generated by institutional power.

Defenders of continuity often focus upon distortions generated by relativism and fragmentation.

Both concerns are legitimate.

Both reveal genuine threats to the Church.

The tragedy occurs when each side becomes incapable of recognizing the truth contained within the other.

Küng increasingly perceived authority as an obstacle to reform.

Ratzinger increasingly perceived reform as a threat to continuity.

As dialogue deteriorated, polarization increased.

The result was not merely personal conflict.

It reflected a deeper crisis in the Church's capacity to integrate critique and continuity.

The Forgotten Lesson of Vatican II

The Second Vatican Council provides a crucial context for understanding this crisis.

Vatican II represented one of the most significant moments of ecclesial self-reflection in modern Catholic history. Its documents repeatedly emphasized dialogue, collegiality, participation, renewal, and engagement with the modern world (Alberigo, 2006).

The Council did not reject tradition.

Nor did it embrace unrestricted innovation.

Rather, it sought to hold continuity and reform together.

In many respects, Vatican II embodied precisely the kind of critical synthesis later advocated by CSR.

Yet the postconciliar period revealed how difficult such synthesis can be.

Different groups interpreted the Council in dramatically different ways.

Some viewed it as a mandate for extensive reform.

Others viewed it primarily as a reaffirmation of tradition.

The resulting tensions shaped the formation of an entire generation of bishops, theologians, and church leaders.

Many of today's ecclesiastical leaders came of age during these conflicts.

Their understanding of authority, reform, and participation was forged within a Church deeply polarized by competing interpretations of Vatican II.

This historical context is essential for understanding contemporary synodality.

Why Synodality Faces Structural Resistance

The contemporary Synod on Synodality seeks to create a Church characterized by listening, participation, dialogue, discernment, and shared responsibility.

Its aspirations are undeniably ambitious.

Yet the project faces profound resistance.

Many explanations have been offered.

Some emphasize ideological divisions.

Others focus upon theological disagreements.

Still others point to questions of governance.

While each explanation contains elements of truth, CSR suggests that a deeper issue is at work.

The resistance to synodality is rooted in the sociology of ecclesial formation itself.

Many contemporary bishops, priests, and church administrators were formed within institutional cultures that rewarded obedience more than dialogue.

They learned to navigate ecclesial systems in which criticism frequently carried personal consequences.

Advancement often depended upon demonstrating reliability, conformity, and institutional trustworthiness.

Such formation was not necessarily malicious.

It reflected the dominant ecclesial culture of the late twentieth century.

Nevertheless, it produced leaders whose instincts were shaped by hierarchical rather than synodal assumptions.

Consequently, many contemporary church leaders find themselves attempting to implement synodality while remaining products of profoundly anti-synodal institutional environments.

The difficulty is therefore not merely procedural.

It is cultural.

It is historical.

It is epistemological.

One cannot create a synodal Church merely by changing structures if the habits of mind underlying those structures remain unchanged.

The challenge facing synodality is therefore not only institutional reform but ecclesial conversion.

The Church must learn new ways of listening.

New ways of exercising authority.

New ways of integrating criticism into communal discernment.

Most importantly, it must learn how to distinguish criticism from disloyalty.

This challenge becomes clearer when examined through the lenses of Newman, Congar, Ratzinger, and Küng, each of whom offers important insights into the relationship between authority, reform, and development.

It is to these thinkers that we now turn.

Additional References for Part III

Alberigo, G. (Ed.). (2006). History of Vatican II (Vols. 1–5). Orbis Books.

Boff, L. (1985). Church: Charism and Power. Crossroad.

Boff, L. (1987). Ecclesiogenesis. Orbis Books.

Curran, C. (2006). The Moral Theology of Pope John Paul II. Georgetown University Press.

Häring, B. (1978). Free and Faithful in Christ (Vol. 1). Seabury Press.

Häring, B. (1981). Free and Faithful in Christ (Vol. 3). Seabury Press.

Küng, H. (1971). Infallible? An Inquiry. Doubleday.

Küng, H. (2002). My Struggle for Freedom. Eerdmans.

Ratzinger, J. (1987). The Nature and Mission of Theology. Ignatius Press.

Ratzinger, J. (2005). Values in a Time of Upheaval. Ignatius Press.

Rowland, T. (2008). Ratzinger's Faith: The Theology of Pope Benedict XVI. Oxford University Press.

Schillebeeckx, E. (1981). Ministry: Leadership in the Community of Jesus Christ. Crossroad.

Schillebeeckx, E. (1987). The Church with a Human Face. Crossroad.